- 65 -
undertaken directly by him but also to expenditures paid or
incurred for research or experimentation carried on in his behalf
by another person or organization". On this record, we are not
persuaded that any research or experimentation performed on
Turtleback I was conducted on JDP's behalf. Rather, we are
convinced that HJI operated an integrated jojoba farming
operation in Hyder, Arizona, and that any research or
experimentation conducted on Turtleback I was designed and
implemented to aid HJI's entire jojoba enterprise.
As discussed above, there is no evidence that Turtleback I
functioned independently of HJI. Moreover, it is clear that from
its inception JDP was viewed as a part of HJI's jojoba farming
enterprise. Indeed, the interrelationship of HJI and JDP can be
seen in the following responses Whittaker made to questions posed
to her on direct examination (by which petitioners were trying to
establish that it was anticipated that the purported research and
development program would lead to valuable discoveries (emphasis
added)):
Q. [Counsel] What would be the nature of the
property interest, the intangible property interest
that the discoveries might constitute?
A. [Whittaker] I am sorry. By the end of the
program or through the program, I think the nature of
the property would be technological expertise,
information or knowledge. The question of
patentability and licensing I think is a twofold issue.
One is, is it proprietary or specific enough to be of
the nature of being patentable, but really, more
importantly or specific to our purposes, I did not, we
did not consider that it was to the benefit of our
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011